扎克伯格成不了比爾?蓋茨二世

Bill Gates 2.0? Keep dreaming, Mr. Zuckerberg

扎克伯格成不了比爾?蓋茨二世

If you came of age after Microsoft (MSFT) dominated the technology industry, you might well look at Bill Gates" philanthropic efforts and call him a hero. Others who had to compete against the de facto monopoly that was Microsoft under Bill Gates might see things differently. To them, he was a vampiric force that fed on the lifeblood of software innovation.

如果你是在微軟公司（Microsoft）稱霸IT業之後才長大成人的，那你可能只會看到比爾?蓋茨的那些慈善義舉，把他當成一個英雄。但對那些一直要和比爾?蓋茨治下、早已成為真正壟斷寡頭的微軟正面較量的人來說，他們眼中的蓋茨就完全是另一種形象了——他就是一個吸吮軟體創新鮮血的吸血鬼。

Then there are people who nostalgically call Gates a hero, not for what he"s doing today, but for what he did back at Microsoft. Or at least there"s one: Mark Zuckerberg. In September, Zuckerberg said at a conference that Gates was his hero when he was growing up. When his interviewer, Michael Arrington, compared Gates to Darth Vader, Zuckerberg disagreed, saying Gates is "one of the greatest visionaries that our industry has ever had."

不過還是有人充滿懷念地管蓋茨叫英雄，不是因為他現在的所作所為，而是因為他當年在微軟的作為。或者說至少還有一個人是這麼想的，那就是馬克?扎克伯格。2013年9月，扎克伯格在一個會議上表示，在他成長的過程中，蓋茨就是他心目中的英雄。當他的採訪者邁克爾?阿靈頓將蓋茨比作達斯?維德（《星球大戰》中的黑武士——譯註）時，扎克伯格表示難以苟同。他認為蓋茨是「我們行業有史以來最偉大的、最富有遠見的人物之一」。

Which raises the question: Now that Gates has moved on from the tech industry, can Zuckerberg become to our era what Gates was in his? Is Facebook (FB) the new Microsoft?

這就引發了一個問題：既然蓋茨已經離開科技業了，那麼扎克伯格能像蓋茨那樣成為我們這個時代的英豪嗎？Facebook又算不算新一代的微軟呢？

Let"s compare them. Both of their companies were the first to build a large scale of users in an emerging tech industry. Both are headstrong visionaries who convey a sometimes bashful, intermittently garrulous public image yet who can be cold-blooded in business. Both, famously, are Harvard dropouts. And both see business success not in terms of how good a product or service is, but in how widely it can be disseminated.

我們不妨來做個比較。他倆的公司都率先在一個新興科技行業中創造了大量用戶。他倆都是剛愎自用且富於遠見的人，有時候表現得比較靦腆，偶爾又會喋喋不休，不過在生意上都能做到冷血無情。他倆都是著名的哈佛退學生。此外，兩人都認為商業成功不在於產品或服務有多好，而在於它們能在多大範圍上推廣普及。

As Zuckerberg explained back in September: "Bill Gates ran one of the most mission-driven companies I can think of. Microsoft had a great mission. To put a computer on every desktop and in every home." Microsoft"s ability to bring concrete change in the world was inspiring Zuckerberg, he said. And Zuckerberg"s company has brought just as much change, if not more so.

正如扎克伯格九月份闡釋自己的話時所說：「據我所知，比爾?蓋茨經營的這家公司是最有富使命感的企業之一。微軟擁有非常了不起的使命，也就是要在每個家庭的每張桌子上都放上電腦。」他還說，正是微軟的這種為世界帶來實實在在變化的能力一直激勵著自己。而扎克伯格的公司即使不能說更勝一籌，至少也讓世界發生了同樣翻天覆地的變化。

But there are important differences too. Facebook and Microsoft came to dominate their industries in different ways. The software industry Microsoft dominated was different from the social web. Every user had to pay for an operating software that was installed computer by computer and that was costly to upgrade. Facebook"s extensive code exists largely in the cloud and is free to use.

但他倆同時也存在很大區別。Facebook和微軟統治各自所在行業的方式不同。微軟所統治的軟體行業與社交網路不是一回事。用戶必須掏錢買預裝在電腦里的操作系統，要升級也代價不小。而Facebook的大量代碼主要都存儲在雲端，用戶可以免費使用。

Microsoft viewed the software industry as a zero-sum game, where a sale to competitors was a loss to Microsoft. Facebook has repeatedly said the Internet isn"t a zero-sum game. Consequently, Microsoft focused on controlling the distribution of PC software. Facebook focuses on capturing its users" attention so it can draw in more ad dollars.

軟體業在微軟眼就是一種零和博弈，也就是對手如果實現了銷售，這就成了微軟的損失。而Facebook則一再表示，互聯網不是零和博弈。這兩種思路就導致了，微軟一直致力於控制PC軟體的分銷，而Facebook的業務重心則是緊抓住用戶的注意力以便獲得更多廣告收入。

It"s much harder for a company to come close to monopolizing a technology industry in the age of the Internet, where open-source software and globally distributed networks make it easy for rivals to come at you. And yet, in some ways, Zuckerberg has built Facebook to look like what Microsoft might have become if it had nailed the Internet early on.

在如今這個互聯網時代，一家公司想要在科技業獲得壟斷地位已經變得難上加難，因為開源軟體和遍布全球的網路使對手要實現偷襲變得輕而易舉。不過在某種程度上，如果微軟早些觸網的話，它今天的模樣應該就是扎克伯格如今打造的Facebook。

Styles of dominance are different. Both companies blatantly copied successful features of others, but Microsoft would copy from partners, even if it meant putting them out of business. Facebook, in the age of the acqi-hire, used threats of copying as a cudgel to drive rivals into acquisition. So Gates at Microsoft was hated, while Zuckerberg really isn"t. (Some don"t want to work with Zuckerberg, however, as Twitter (TWTR) and Snapchat both rebuffed generous offers from Facebook.)

這兩家公司的統治風格也不一樣。它們都會公然拷貝其他公司的成功之處，但微軟會複製合作夥伴的做法，哪怕這意味讓這些夥伴在業內失去立足之地。而在這個「併購招才」（acqi-hire，通過併購直接把收購公司的人才招於麾下，而對其產品或服務置之不顧——譯註）的時代，Facebook則揮舞著拷貝威脅這個大棒直接收購對手。因此微軟時期的蓋茨才那麼招人嫉恨，而扎克伯格則不會這麼惹人恨（不過有些人還是不想和扎克伯格共事，比如Twitter和Snapchat都斷然拒絕了Facebook出手大方的收購條件）。

That may be because Gates didn"t care whether anyone liked him or not. His brand of world domination is content to inspire fear, if not respect. By comparison, Zuckerberg"s attempt to win the world feels more wishy-washy. He likes to talk publicly about how reluctant he was to generate revenue at Facebook (any such claim from the CEO of a public company is as credible as a shark swearing to a vegan diet). Or how, back at Harvard, he and his roommates used to have long, idealistic talks about how the Internet could add transparency to the world.

原因可能是因為蓋茨根本不在乎人家對他有沒有好感。他統御全球的盛名就算不能贏得別人的敬重，也足以讓人敬畏了。相比之下，扎克伯格想贏得全世界的抱負就顯得軟弱無力得多了。他總喜歡在公開場合夸夸其談，說什麼他在Facebook是多麼不想讓公司賺錢（對一個公眾公司的首席執行官來說，這番話簡直就像鯊魚發誓要吃素一樣不靠譜）。或者什麼想當年在哈佛時，他和室友曾做過充滿理想主義色彩的長談，討論互聯網如何能讓這個世界增加透明度。

Maybe, but the early iterations of Facebook at Harvard suggest otherwise. There"s the infamous Facemash, as well as an earlier site he created to entice students to share insights on a course he failed to attend. Both were primitive social networks that crudely exploited the contributions of their users – a template that would play out again and again in Facebook"s privacy policies.

這番話可能是真的，不過當年在哈佛校園裡Facebook的幾個前身似乎並不是這麼回事。其中既有名聲不好聽的Facemash，也有他更早時候創辦的一個網站。這個網站就是要吸引學生來吐槽他翹的一門課。這兩個社交網路雛形都粗暴地利用了用戶所做的貢獻——而這後來在Facebook的隱私政策里又一再重演。

So here"s one difference between the hero and his follower: Bill Gates might plant a knife and watch you suffer. Mark Zuckerberg would make a thousand paper cuts and pretend you imagined them all.

所以這就是英雄和他的追隨者之間的一大區別：比爾?蓋茨可能是埋下一把刀看著你受傷流血，而扎克伯格則是做了一千張會割人的紙，卻裝得好像你早就知道它們的存在。

Both of these approaches can help build a technology colossus, and yet neither will be beloved by consumers. But something interesting happens when these two approaches are translated to the world of philanthropy. There is a familiar ruthlessness that Bill Gates has brought to the application of his wealth to solving problems that have historically proven tough to solve. And, so far, there is a practicality to Zuckerberg"s donations that have a self-serving feel to them.

這兩種方式都有助於打造科技巨頭，不過卻都得不到消費者的好感。但當它們用於慈善領域時，卻出現了一些有意思的情況。當比爾?蓋茨把自己的財富用於解決歷史上一直被認為難以解決的問題時，他再次展現出那種世人所熟知的冷酷無情。同時，迄今為止，扎克伯格那些似乎是為他的私利服務的捐獻也體現出了實際價值。

When it comes to giving money, both Gates and Zuckerberg have been, in their ways, both generous and (to borrow Zuckerberg"s term) "mission-driven." The Gates Foundation has $40 billion in assets, and its work has taken the edge off a lot of bitter resentment Gates built up at Microsoft, if not silenced them completely.

說到捐錢，蓋茨和扎克伯格都以自己的方式表現得慷慨大方，同時（借用扎克伯格的說法）「充滿使命感」。蓋茨基金會（Gates Foundation）的資產高達400億美元，而且對蓋茨在微軟期間結下的許多怨恨來說，這個基金會的所作所為雖不能讓它們完全平息，但已有所緩和。

Zuckerberg has moved aggressively into philanthropy much earlier in his career. He was one of the first to pledge to give the bulk of one"s wealth to charity, a gesture prompting others to follow. He pledged $100 million to New Jersey public schools in 2012 and nearly a billion dollars worth of Facebook shares to a Silicon Valley non-profit last year. He"s also worked with Gates to teach coding and improve broadband in schools.

而扎克伯格則在事業發展的很早期就開始高調進軍慈善了。他是最早那批號稱要把自己的絕大部分財富捐給慈善事業的人，這種表態也推動了其他有錢人紛紛跟進。2012年，他向新澤西的公立學校捐了一億美元，去年又把價值近十億美元的Facebook股票捐給了矽谷的非營利組織。他還和蓋茨聯手教授編程，同時改善學校的寬頻設施。

So Gates and Zuckerberg are giving billions to charities in a period where such donations are sorely needed. They both deserve praise. Within the world of philanthropy -- itself a tight economy competing for scarce resources -- there has long been a debate over how to allocate resources efficiently. And it"s here that a distinction again emerges between young Zuckerberg and old Gates.

所以，蓋茨和扎克伯格是在慈善事業非常需要捐助的時期捐給它億萬財富的。他倆都值得褒揚。在慈善領域——這是個總得去爭取稀缺資源的緊缺經濟體，大家長期以來一直就如何有效分配資源這個問題爭論不休。也正是在這個問題上，年輕的扎克伯格和蓋茨再次出現了分歧。

Last year, Zuckerberg founded FWD.us, a lobbying group to push immigration and education reform. He claimed he was fighting to bring undocumented workers into the U.S., but never denied some would help make Facebook stronger. Zuckerberg actually said, "I can"t really tell anyone how to legislate," even as FWD.us was lobbying for the immigration reform he was publicly seeking. Gates was listed as supporter of FWD.us in name, although he was less vocal about its goals.

去年扎克伯格創建了FWD.us，這是一個致力於推動移民和教育改革的遊說團體。他宣稱自己是在為讓那些非法入境的工人融入美國社會而奮鬥，但也從未否認過其中一些人可能會讓Facebook變得更強大。就算FWD.us在為了他公開謀求的移民改革開展遊說時，他也是這麼表態的：「我真不能跟任何人明說怎麼才能讓這些人的身份合法化。」蓋茨的大名也赫然出現在FWD.us的支持者名單里，不過他很少就這個組織的目標表態。

Last year, Zuckerberg also began to talk about how important it would be to bring 5 billion people online. Forget that mobile phones and the Internet would connect much of that population in time, with or without Zuckerberg. He wanted a personal stake in that process -- an investment that would make Facebook"s ad-clogged news feed a rite of passage into the global middle class.

去年扎克伯格還開始大談什麼讓50億人都上網是何等重要，但他卻忘了，不管有沒有扎克伯格，手機和互聯網都會讓50億人中的大多數保持聯繫。實際上他是自己想在這個過程中分一杯羹——有了這樣的投資，Facebook塞滿廣告的新聞就能直達全世界的中產階級。

And that"s when the cynical, slick practicality of Mark Zuckerberg ran afoul of the let"s-cut-through-this-shit directness of his stated hero. Bill Gates had no issue with Zuckerberg"s philanthropy, but when it came to connectivity over his pet projects -- disease, poverty, educating the disenfranchised -- he drew the line.

正是在這個問題上，扎克伯格憤世嫉俗、聰明圓滑的實用主義與他鼓吹的英雄的「讓我們乾脆挑明」的直截了當發生了正面衝突。比爾?蓋茨本來跟扎克伯格的慈善事業沒什麼矛盾，但如果說上網比他心愛的慈善項目——疾病、貧窮、培訓被剝奪公民權的人——還重要時，他就要堅決跟扎克伯格劃清界線了。

"As a priority? It"s a joke," Gates said to the Financial Times when asked of Zuckerberg"s plans to connect the world"s population. "Hmm, which is more important, connectivity or malaria vaccine? If you think connectivity is the key thing, that"s great. I don"t."

《金融時報》（Financial Times）採訪蓋茨時，談及扎克伯格讓全球人口都上網的計劃，他說：「這算頭等大事？它只是個玩笑罷了。呃，到底哪個更重要，是上網還是瘧疾疫苗？如果你覺得上網很重要，這也不錯。但我不這麼想。」

And there you have Bill Gates, and there you have his self-appointed acolyte Mark Zuckerberg. Gates is brutally direct. Zuck is insidiously, disingenuously, sugar-coatedly indirect. Gates will push his vision at any cost, even if that cost is extinguishing better technologies, or hacking around rigid social policies.

這就是比爾?蓋茨，還有他自封的隨從馬克?扎克伯格。蓋茨說話絕對口無遮攔。扎克呢？卻是深藏不露、毫無誠意、粉飾做作的兜圈子。蓋茨為了推動自己的理想會不惜代價，哪怕這個代價是要犧牲更好的技術，或是要迂迴繞開僵化的社會政策。

Zuck, meanwhile, is still stuck in that executive mindset where you act and talk like you"re helping the world, but you do it just to further the interests of your company. In 20 or so years, the philanthropy of Mark Zuckerberg may be so great that Bill Gates is just the footnote as the guy who inspired him. Or it could be that he"s just another business leader who amassed a great fortune and was forgotten.

與此同時，扎克卻還是一副公司高管的心態，好像自己的所作所為和高談闊論都是為了幫助這個世界，但實際上只是為了進一步給自己的公司牟利。今後20多年裡，扎克伯格的慈善事業要麼可能會變得無比宏偉，以至於比爾?蓋茨也只能淪為配角，作為當年曾啟發過他的人出現；要麼他可能也就是另一個曾斂財無數最後照樣被世人遺忘的商業領袖。

The operating software Gates forced into hundreds of millions of homes and businesses may have been inferior in quality to what Zuckerberg enticed a billion-plus lives into. But much of what Zuckerberg won has to do with the fact that, thanks to the Internet, technology has scaled up to more of the world"s population. What would Zuckerberg be in the age of Gates? Or Gates (as tech CEO) in the age of Zuckerberg?

蓋茨讓千家萬戶和無數企業用上的操作系統可能在品質上不如扎克伯格吸引十億多芸芸眾生使用的服務。但扎克伯格的成就很大程度上要歸功於互聯網，正因為有了網路，技術才能更大範圍地惠及世界各地的人。如果置身於蓋茨那個時代，扎克伯格會有什麼作為呢？或者說蓋茨（作為技術公司的首席執行官）處於扎克伯格這個時代他又能取得什麼成就呢？

Put in political terms, Zuckerberg practices the realpolitik, while Gates is a die-hard ideologue. In the business world, pure practicality can carry you from quarter to quarter, while the ideologues can be the ones who engineer broadening and more lasting change. Zuckerberg"s career is just getting started, but it may be Gates who has the bigger impact on the world, not just in business but in the philanthropy both men have pledged themselves to.

如果用政治術語來形容他倆，那麼扎克伯格奉行的是現實政治，而蓋茨則是地地道道的理論家。在商業領域中，純粹的實用主義能讓你穩妥地度過一個又一個財季，而理想主義則能推動更廣闊、更持久的變革。扎克伯格的事業才剛開始，而蓋茨可能對我們這個世界影響更大，不光是在商業領域，在這兩位都自稱全力以赴的慈善事業領域恐怕也是如此。